People v. Randolph CA2/2

Filed 8/3/22 P. v. Randolph CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B317519

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA027017) v.

RAYMOND CHARLES RANDOLPH,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

Defendant and appellant Raymond Charles Randolph (defendant) appeals from an order denying his pro se petition for clarification of his restitution fine obligation and to stop the collection of funds from his prison trust account. Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to follow the procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. Where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in an appeal seeking postjudgment relief, the appellate

court is not required to conduct an independent review of the record for arguable issues. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278; see People v. Serrano, supra, at p. 503.) Instead, the defendant is given the opportunity to file his or her own supplemental brief or letter, and we review the defendant’s contentions or arguments set forth in any such supplemental brief or letter that may be filed. (People v. Cole, supra, at p. 1039.) Here, defendant was notified of his counsel’s brief, and he filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the contentions or arguments set forth therein, and we agree with the trial court that defendant has failed to make a prima facie case for relief. We thus affirm the court’s order.

BACKGROUND In 2004, defendant was convicted of second degree murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum parole period of 80 years. In addition, defendant was ordered to pay a restitution fine of $750. In 2020, prior to filing the current petition, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court, which the court construed as requesting that the amount of his restitution fine in superior court case No. MA027017 be reduced or discharged due to COVID-19.1 The court denied the habeas petition on August 28, 2020. In December 2021, defendant filed a “Petition for Clarification of Restitution Order,” which is the subject of this